he Muslim advocacy group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is asking the nations media to make this their new years resolution: Stop using the word Islamist.

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIRs communications director, explained in a Jan. 3 op-ed why his group is upset the Associated Press added the term to its latest stylebook, a document that guides reporters worldwide. Hooper wrote:

That entry reads: Islamist  Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.

The AP says it sought input from Arabic-speaking experts and hoped to provide a neutral perspective by emphasizing the wide range of religious views encompassed in the term. Many Muslims who wish to serve the public good are influenced by the principles of their faith. Islam teaches Muslims to work for the welfare of humanity and to be honest and just. If this inspiration came from the Bible, such a person might well be called a Good Samaritan. But when the source is the Quran, the person is an Islamist.

Unfortunately, the term Islamist has become shorthand for Muslims we dont like. It is currently used in an almost exclusively pejorative context and is often coupled with the term extremist, giving it an even more negative slant.

The Islamist Muslim agitator group Council on American-Islamist Relations (CAIR) is asking the nations dhimmi media to make this their new years resolution: Stop using the word Christian.

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIRs Islamist communications director, explained in a Jan. 3 op-ed why his group is upset the Associated Press added the term to its latest stylebook, a document that guides reporters worldwide. Hooper wrote:

“Christians worship a false god, the Mohammedan prophet Jesus, who was not God, but a prophet, and one claimed by Islam as a prophet. Being infidels, they have no right or claim to an Islamic prophet in any form, as they are descended from unclean pigs and dogs. Likewise they have no claim to any parts of any Muslim lands on which they have built their heretical and blasphemous temples and atheist edifices.

“And Muslim lands now include the entirety of Africa, Europe, Asia, and Oceania, as well as large portions of North and South America that are and will become Muslim lands in the near future.”

Muslims we don’t like? You mean the ones who really believe it is their religious duty to impose Islam’s Three Demands upon all unbelievers: Convert, Submit or Die?

Or do you mean Muslims who believe in the traditional definition of “jiihad”, that Muslims who die while bringing death to infidels are given a priority boarding pass to the afterlife, which appears to me to be a big brothel. Those Muslims?

Or do you mean those Muslims who accept the Islamic teaching of “taqiyya”, a word that means that a Muslim can tell any lie if it advances Islam. Or maybe those Muslims who believe they must not make any friends among those who do not believe?

Or those Muslims who divide the world into two parts: The part under Islam’s control that they call “Dar al-Islam”, meaning “land of peace”, and the part they call “Dar al-harb “, meaning “land of war”. So when Muslims call Islam the “religion of peace” they are referring to lands and peoples under the control of Islam only. And the only way for you, oh unbeliever, to not have Muslims constantly committing war against you is for you to accept Islam and be at peace?

Or the kind of Muslims who are obligated to kill anyone in cold blood who insults Islam?

Those kind of Muslims? Or a kind who cannot quite bring themselves to obey the Koran, and the Hadith and Sunnah?

“Hooper tried to strike a comparison between Islamic extremism with other religions. He wrote:

There are also no  nor should there be  references to Christianists, Judaists or Hinduists for those who would similarly seek governments in accord with the laws of their respective faiths.”

To which I would observe that secular leftists in the US MSM have and do call people who advocate the Christian point of view “Christianists”, as a pejorative.

The MSM does in deed have a term for “Judaists”, they call them “hard liners” or “Zionists”.

But in both cases and for related but slightly different reasons, neither “Chriatianists” nor “Judaists” seek to force anyone into their belief system upon threat of death, nor do they seek to conquer the world. Certainly people who are Christian know their duty is to bring the truth about Jesus to everyone, but they also know that nobody can accept that message by anything other than peaceful voluntary fully informed consent.

People who support a homeland for Jews know the geographical limits of that homeland. They do not seek to overthrow Libya or Turkey. They only seek to secure the land of Israel for Jews to live.

Muslims on the other hand have an obligation to force the whole world, including David Gregory, Bill Maher and Bayonce to name a few, or else they are obligated to slay anyone who declines.

There are other faiths who do not eat pork. Some Christian groups observe the Leviticus 11 food laws. including many Messianic Christians. The several Churches of God who are “primitive Christian” do as well.

See:
GODS HEALTH LAW CONCERNING MEATS

Genesis 7:1-2, Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 give Gods instructions concerning what He created “clean” (edible) and “unclean” (inedible). Long after the crucifixion, Peter still recognized this law as binding (Acts 10:14). Moreover, after his vision of unclean animals brought down on a sheet, Peter exclaimed: “God has shown me that I should call no man common or unclean” (v. 28).

But to draw a distinction, Mohammedans regard unclean animals as something a human must not touch either. So, for example, they will not have dogs as pets, and even Muslim cab drivers have had an issue with allowing guide dogs in their cabs, just as they would a bottle of wine. Because dog, cats, hamsters etc are not food, people who observe Leviticus 11 food laws have no problem with these animals as pets.

And you can stop a Mosque project cold by burying a dead pig at the site thus rendering it “haram” , but it matters not to a Jew or Christian who would not eat pork.

The two dozen journalists who are still alive and writing should stop using “Islamist” and start using the much more accurate term, “follower of a mass-murdering terrorist pedophile”. Thanks Patriot95.

39
posted on 01/06/2013 3:04:46 PM PST
by SunkenCiv
(Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.